The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Marginal Fit Metal–Ceramic and In-Ceram Single Crown Cement retained in Implant-supported Abutments

Rudys Rodolfo de Jesus Tavarez, Mateus R Tonetto, EM Maia Filho, Valdimar S Valente, Carlos E Francischone, CD Vilarinho Soares de Moura, CE Francischone Júnior, Antonio M Silva, Izabella S Ribeiro

Citation Information : de Jesus Tavarez RR, Tonetto MR, Filho EM, Valente VS, Francischone CE, de Moura CV, Júnior CF, Silva AM, Ribeiro IS. Marginal Fit Metal–Ceramic and In-Ceram Single Crown Cement retained in Implant-supported Abutments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (12):969-972.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1965

Published Online: 00-12-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

This study evaluated the cervical fit of cemented metal–ceramic and In-Ceram implant-supported crowns, before and after the cementing procedure.

Materials and methods

Twenty crowns cemented on implant abutments are divided into two groups (n = 10): Group 1 – cemented metal–ceramic crowns and group 2 – cemented In-Ceram crowns. The marginal adaptations before and after cementation were evaluated in a comparison microscope with an error of 1 μm. All crowns were cemented with zinc phosphate cement.

Results

The cervical misalignment of cemented crowns before cementation (52.65 ± 11.83 and 85.73 ± 14.06 μm) was lower than that after cementation (66.80 ± 15.86 and 89.36 ± 22.66 μm).

Conclusion

The cementing procedure interferes with the marginal fit of cemented crowns on implant abutments, with the prosthesis having better adaptation before cementation. Cemented metal–ceramic crowns exhibited better cervical adaptation than In-Ceram crowns cemented before and after the cementing procedure.

Clinical significance

The maintenance of gum health and the longevity of prosthetic restorations are closely related to the restoration's marginal integrity.

How to cite this article

Valente VS, Francischone CE, Vilarinho Soares de Moura CD, Francischone Júnior CE, Silva AM, Ribeiro IS, Maia Filho EM, Bandéca MC, Tonetto MR, de Jesus Tavarez RR. Marginal Fit Metal–Ceramic and In-Ceram Single Crown Cement retained in Implant-supported Abutments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(12):969-972.


PDF Share
  1. Marginal discrepancies and leakage of allceramic crowns: influence of luting agents and aging conditions. Int J Prosthodont 2003 Mar-Apr;16(2):109-116.
  2. Fluids and microbial penetration in the internal part of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-abutment connections. J Periodontol 2001 Sep;72(9):1146-1150.
  3. Vertical discrepancy and microleakage of lasersintered and vacuum-cast implant-supported structures luted with different cement types. J Dent 2012 Feb;40(2):123-130.
  4. Marginal accuracy and fracture strength of conventional and copy-milled all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1995 Jul-Aug;8(4):303-310.
  5. Marginal adaptation of all-ceramic crowns on implant abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008 Dec;10(4):218-225.
  6. A comparison of the marginal vertical discrepancies of zirconium and metal ceramic posterior fixed dental prostheses before and after cementation. J Prosthet Dent 2009 Dec;102(6):378-384.
  7. Fracture load and marginal fit of shrinkage-free ZrSiO4 all-ceramic crowns after chewing simulation. J Oral Rehabil 2006 Nov;33(11):827-832.
  8. Marginal accuracy of combined tooth-implantsupported fixed dental prostheses after in vitro stress simulation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008 Dec;19(12):1261-1269.
  9. Fracture resistance of metal ceramic restorations with two different margin designs after exposure to masticatory simulation. J Prosthet Dent 2009 Sep;102(3):172-178.
  10. In vitro marginal fit of three all-ceramic crown systems before and after cementation. Oper Dent 2012 Nov-Dec;37(6):641-649.
  11. Marginal discrepancy of monolithic and veneered all-ceramic crowns on titanium and zirconia implant abutments before and after adhesive cementation: a scanning electron microscopy analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013 Mar-Apr;28(2):480-487.
  12. An in vivo evaluation of fit of zirconium-oxide based ceramic single crowns, generated with two CAD/CAM systems, in comparison to metal ceramic single crowns. J Prosthodont 2013 Jan;22(1):36-34.
  13. Comparison of marginal and internal adaptation of CAD/CAM and conventional cement retained implant-supported single crowns. Implant Dent 2016 Feb;25(1):103-108.
  14. Evaluation of marginal and internal fit of ceramic and metallic crown copings using x-ray microtomography (micro-CT) technology. J Prosthet Dent 2015 Aug;114(2):223-228.
  15. Marginal and internal fit of pressed ceramic crowns made from conventional and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing wax patterns: an in vitro comparison. J Prosthet Dent 2016 Mar:pii: S0022-3913(15)00686-1.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.